Concept Cinema DSLR Official

[Meh]

Again, if you are going to claim this is f/2.8-3.5 you need to back it up because you're stating something that seems physically impossible - the lens having a smaller aperture than its T-stop rating permits.

Is that not how T-stop ratings work, T>f? ie DXOmark gives the EF 24 f/1.4 Lii a Tstop rating of 1.6, and the 17-55 f/2.8 has a T-stop of 3.4. At T2.95-3.7, I just guessed the new lens would have f/2.8-3.5, could be a lot wider aperture.
An "ideal" lens would have T=f, impossible is T<f? Or maybe i'm backwards, it's late.

I believe that's correct.  A T-stop can be measured for any lens, it is common for cine-lens where very precise control and consistency of the exposure is required.  For any lens, the T-stop is the equivalent f-stop if the lens had zero transmission loss.  Therefore the T-stop is always higher (larger number) than the f-stop of the lens.

[smirkypants]

Kind of reminds me of when all the Mac sites started talking all the time about the iPhone. I mean sure, great... related product. I had a Mac and didn't have an iPhone. I didn't care about an iPhone. I went to the sites for the coverage of Macs.

[ferdi]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but will this be able to take stills aswell? I just havent seen anything about it?

Larry Thorpe: "You can, but only in HD - 1920 x 1080 pixels. So it won't be as good as a still that you'd get from the 5D Mark II, obviously. But it's a decent picture and you can record stills to SDHC cards, which slot in the side of the camera. You've got CompactFlash for motion imaging but you can record stills to SDHC. "

Do you have infinity focus with it? How about focus confirmation and correct aperture reporting?

Infinity focus yes, focus confirmation via a chip if you really want. (but seeing as this new C300 won't have dslr-type AF that doesn't matter)
Do PL-mounts have aperture reporting through electronic contacts either?

Lack of AF doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't confirm focus.
I'm not sure about the PL-mount specs, you could be right about it not reporting the aperture.

For now their is no price difference between EF and PL mount so why even bother?

Why bother, is that directed to the PL- or EF-mount?
If i'm a filmmaker, I can take a C300 with EF mount out into the middle of Africa with an EF 1200 f/5.6 L IS and get some really good film from safe distances, or I can stick on the fisheye, or the 50 f/1.0, or 70 other lenses, *and* I can mount my expensive PL-mount lenses on the same camera.

I meant: why bother putting on an adapter if Canon provides a PL mount for the same price (although a bit later)? Now that you told us you have both EF and PL mount lenses it makes more sense. I guess the C300 is for movie makers with just PL-mount lenses.
Let's see what Larry Thorpe had to say about it:

"Frankly I think that the genius was to make two versions - an EF version and a PL, and recognize that we have a gigantic constituency of EF users worldwide [...] so they can play with their existing lenses, and then that other gigantic worldwide constituency of PL mounts uses. There's a huge inventory of those lenses out there that people own, and are held by rental agencies - people can just buy the C300 and use their favorite lenses on it. So we're really addressing two big constituencies."
(source: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7685106578/canon-eos-c300-launch-interview-with-larry-thorpe)

Offtopic: You have a 1200L with IS? 

What I am concerned about is, will they "leave out features" on purpose only to make their high end offerings seem more reasonable?

I hope not, but I am afraid that's how marketing/sales works.

[KitH]

I might agree with your Canon eccentricities comment -Drama.  And can someone tell me why they have to release both a PL and an EF model at $20,000 each???  LOL, you mean to tell me the tech wizards at canon couldn't design one with a modular/swapable mount.  Pop out the EF mount and swap it for a PL mount?  Really not inspiring confidence here guys...

Or not even that, EF mount is 44mm, PL mount is 52mm. I can go to ebay right now and get a $10 adapter to mount a PL lens on my 7D. Anyone who buys the PL-mount C300 is locking themselves out of the EF-mount for not much benefit, but anyone who buys the EF-mount can use EF *and* PL (and not to mention, nikon, Olympus OM, pentax, M42, all Medium Format) lenses.
The only reason I can see for releasing a PL-mount C300 is to keep all the hollywood types (who don't understand much about mounts except for "i must have PL mount") happy.

There's a bit more to it that just swapping mounts, if you want to keep the focus scale (and we're talking to people who use tape measures and depth of field tables here) then here's a link to Zeiss' take on swapping mounts.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6807EKs1SU They have to take special care to align and calibrate each lens to each camera and insert slender shims to make it exact.  Ten minute job if you're good.

Zeiss Compact Primes are basically the familiar lenses we know from 35mm rehoused in cine compatible barrels and with smoother apertures and accurate distance scales.  They have to be all the same size to fit the focusing mechanisms used by the focus puller (yes, that's a skilled job in itself). 

The new Canon primes sound to me like our fast EF L-primes, similarly rehoused, going from 24mm f1.4 to 24mm T1.5, and 50mm and 85 f1.2 to T1.3 and without AF.  Noted Canon doesn't really shout about these ones being all-new designs. 

The difference between f stop and T stop was once explained to me as f is for people who like buying lenses, T is for people who like to stop the swearing in edit suites because of inconsistent exposure with different lenses.

On balance, reading a lot of the announcements and discussion, much of what Canon has done here is listen to the people who have to pay for post-production and do everything they can to avoid additional work on the images.   I've heard (someone from a big studio, can't recall which one)  the cost savings of shooting films for TV with a 5DII is taken out by increased post-processing work needed.

On the other hand, they may simply be taking the battle to Zeiss, who could be giving them cause for concern through their cosy relationship with Sony. 

On the splitting camera lines into stills and video, there may be some business justification there.  Broadcast rights and still image rights to big events (like the FIFA World Cup) are sold separately.  These are huge content deals and there were rumblings in South Africa about the photographers upsetting the broadcasters by pitching up with cameras shooting HD material just as easily as taking stills.   

[CJRodgers]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but will this be able to take stills aswell? I just havent seen anything about it?

Larry Thorpe: "You can, but only in HD - 1920 x 1080 pixels. So it won't be as good as a still that you'd get from the 5D Mark II, obviously. But it's a decent picture and you can record stills to SDHC cards, which slot in the side of the camera. You've got CompactFlash for motion imaging but you can record stills to SDHC. "

oh right, so it would be low res photos. So not at all for stills people really, or even people that want half and half. Its very much more geared to just advacnced video. So do you think the 5dmkiii would be more balanced inbetween video quality and stills.

[dilbert]

I'd agree with several of these posts. I'll be very interested to see price point and uptake. It would seem that Canon have missed the point slightly, in that the enthusiasm for DSLR film making is from people who value a camera that can do both, and don't have the money to split their interests across two product lines.

If this is a high end product, aimed at Hollywood, then fine. I have a feeling though, that this might be one of those Canon eccentricities that never really finds it's desired market.

It is a higher end product than than their DSLRs.

Canon sees these cameras as being something to compete with the cheaper(?) Arri cameras.

The C300 cameras are not and were not targeted at people who take photographs. Yes, maybe they can, but nothing about their specifications or look says that to me. The C300s have neither automatic focus nor automatic exposure.

For those that are using the 5D2 or 7D to shoot video, I think the concept cinema DSLR is the one to watch for.

Now where will that get priced? Interesting question.

I can easily see it being more than a 5D2. More than the 1DX? Hard to say without knowing the full feature set. It could easily be $4k-$5k or more if it brings with it an increase in performance that results in requiring less post processing (time is money.)

[dilbert]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but will this be able to take stills aswell? I just havent seen anything about it?

Larry Thorpe: "You can, but only in HD - 1920 x 1080 pixels. So it won't be as good as a still that you'd get from the 5D Mark II, obviously. But it's a decent picture and you can record stills to SDHC cards, which slot in the side of the camera. You've got CompactFlash for motion imaging but you can record stills to SDHC. "

oh right, so it would be low res photos. So not at all for stills people really, or even people that want half and half. Its very much more geared to just advacnced video. So do you think the 5dmkiii would be more balanced inbetween video quality and stills.

The "concept cinema DSLR", which this thread is about. is the camera that I think will have more balanced video/still quality. I expect that the 5D3 will have similar video performance to what it has now. Maybe higher frame rates but not that much more. The 5D2 is a stills camera that also has some video capability and we should expect Canon to keep it that way.

[Axilrod]

I might agree with your Canon eccentricities comment -Drama.  And can someone tell me why they have to release both a PL and an EF model at $20,000 each???  LOL, you mean to tell me the tech wizards at canon couldn't design one with a modular/swapable mount.  Pop out the EF mount and swap it for a PL mount?  Really not inspiring confidence here guys...

Or not even that, EF mount is 44mm, PL mount is 52mm. I can go to ebay right now and get a $10 adapter to mount a PL lens on my 7D. Anyone who buys the PL-mount C300 is locking themselves out of the EF-mount for not much benefit, but anyone who buys the EF-mount can use EF *and* PL (and not to mention, nikon, Olympus OM, pentax, M42, all Medium Format) lenses.
The only reason I can see for releasing a PL-mount C300 is to keep all the hollywood types (who don't understand much about mounts except for "i must have PL mount") happy.

There's a bit more to it that just swapping mounts, if you want to keep the focus scale (and we're talking to people who use tape measures and depth of field tables here) then here's a link to Zeiss' take on swapping mounts.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6807EKs1SU They have to take special care to align and calibrate each lens to each camera and insert slender shims to make it exact.  Ten minute job if you're good.

Zeiss Compact Primes are basically the familiar lenses we know from 35mm rehoused in cine compatible barrels and with smoother apertures and accurate distance scales.  They have to be all the same size to fit the focusing mechanisms used by the focus puller (yes, that's a skilled job in itself). 

The new Canon primes sound to me like our fast EF L-primes, similarly rehoused, going from 24mm f1.4 to 24mm T1.5, and 50mm and 85 f1.2 to T1.3 and without AF.  Noted Canon doesn't really shout about these ones being all-new designs. 

The difference between f stop and T stop was once explained to me as f is for people who like buying lenses, T is for people who like to stop the swearing in edit suites because of inconsistent exposure with different lenses.

On balance, reading a lot of the announcements and discussion, much of what Canon has done here is listen to the people who have to pay for post-production and do everything they can to avoid additional work on the images.   I've heard (someone from a big studio, can't recall which one)  the cost savings of shooting films for TV with a 5DII is taken out by increased post-processing work needed.

On the other hand, they may simply be taking the battle to Zeiss, who could be giving them cause for concern through their cosy relationship with Sony. 

On the splitting camera lines into stills and video, there may be some business justification there.  Broadcast rights and still image rights to big events (like the FIFA World Cup) are sold separately.  These are huge content deals and there were rumblings in South Africa about the photographers upsetting the broadcasters by pitching up with cameras shooting HD material just as easily as taking stills.

For $6800/each it better be something more than an old L lens in a new housing

[Axilrod]

I'd agree with several of these posts. I'll be very interested to see price point and uptake. It would seem that Canon have missed the point slightly, in that the enthusiasm for DSLR film making is from people who value a camera that can do both, and don't have the money to split their interests across two product lines.

If this is a high end product, aimed at Hollywood, then fine. I have a feeling though, that this might be one of those Canon eccentricities that never really finds it's desired market.

It is a higher end product than than their DSLRs.

Canon sees these cameras as being something to compete with the cheaper(?) Arri cameras.

The C300 cameras are not and were not targeted at people who take photographs. Yes, maybe they can, but nothing about their specifications or look says that to me. The C300s have neither automatic focus nor automatic exposure.

For those that are using the 5D2 or 7D to shoot video, I think the concept cinema DSLR is the one to watch for.

Now where will that get priced? Interesting question.

I can easily see it being more than a 5D2. More than the 1DX? Hard to say without knowing the full feature set. It could easily be $4k-$5k or more if it brings with it an increase in performance that results in requiring less post processing (time is money.)

I agree, the C300 is clearly geared towards industry professionals/independent filmmakers.  Canon knows it needs a product to move in volume, and a Cinema DSLR priced around $3500-$5k would be just that, and that's what I'm waiting for.

[KitH]

For $6800/each it better be something more than an old L lens in a new housing

Exactly...   A great cine lens and a great DSLR lens have different priorities.   Here are a few that matter to Cine. 

No focus shift - when we say 20ft, we mean 20ft.
No curvature of field - again, so the plane of focus is where it says it is.
Edge to edge sharpness - unthinkable to shoot the opening sequence of WITNESS (the wide landscape where the grasses ripple in the wind)  with a lens that's soft in the corners.
No lens breathing when pulling focus - we need to shift focus mid-shot to direct attention at the action.  If the framing changes with focusing distance or the focus then that's not great. 
We want an image that "pops" when it's sharp, especially in dialogue scenes or crowded city street scenes, again to direct attention.  This is one reason directors like the "Zeissy" look.  Some say it's "microcontrast", whatever that is.  I'll go with "pops". 
No color fringing whatever.  Tidying up a single slide in post production is one thing, 25fps multiplied by hours and  hours of shot footage is entirely different.  Superachromats preferred.
Don't have to worry about pixel peepers as much in a movie.
Apertures with lots of rounded blades, to give perfectly round specular blurs.  Smooth (non-clicky) aperture controls because intermediate values are often used.

Huge zoom ratios at constant T stop, 10x is a good starting point.  100x lens ratios for TV cameras do exist.  Did the designers of the  new zooms choose to give up the full-frame image circle in return for some other characteristic - like no breathing or a constant T. number?

I didn't mention focus staying constant while zooming (which stills photographers like),  we try to avoid those, they're nauseating, unless you're Spielberg and it's a 45 second travelling shot from a crane.

I'll be interested to see how many of these characteristics we'll get for our $6800. 

It's been said these are low production run lenses.  I see a large market coming from the roll-out of multichannel digital TV and IPTV across Asia-Pac countries to make quite a useful business that Canon won't less pass them.  It's less Hollywood, more Bollywood, China and SE Asia.

[gene_can_sing]

I actually think the hybrid DSLR / Video will be a huge seller.

1) It will be a very good, full frame stills camera. Probably limited to 12 mp for stills, since that's about the max / ideal mp for good 4K video. For me 12k stills is perfectly fine. I'm sure with Digic V, the still will be top quality.

2) Unlike some people have mentioned, I'm sure you have the option of shooting 2K or 4K video. You don't have to just shoot 4K. Even the current DSLRs give you and SD or HD option.

3) The reason why I like this is because it's more an all around solution. I love Full Frame video (only Canon offers this), yet with this upcoming DSLR, you can still do cool stills oriented stuff like Time Lapse photography (which you can't do with video cameras); and yes, take good photos.

4) It probably won't have the 1Dx 64 pt (is that correct?) auto focus and maybe not as high performing ISO, but will probably be a better stills performer than the upcoming 36mp Since it will have lower MP which translates to less noise. I'd be fine with a 7D style auto focus, even if it does have way less points.

That just means, less cameras to carry around. If you can deal with being limited to 12mp, I think this will be a great balance of both worlds. You'll get top performance in stills and a great video camera. Canon realizes that a stills camera mixed with video will sell way more than just a stills camera or just a video camera. Look at the 5D2, probably the first true hybrid. It had to have been one of the biggest money making DSLRs of all time. With the much improved video on the next version, Canon will sell countless bodies.

[Axilrod]

I actually think the hybrid DSLR / Video will be a huge seller.

1) It will be a very good, full frame stills camera. Probably limited to 12 mp for stills, since that's about the max / ideal mp for good 4K video. For me 12k stills is perfectly fine. I'm sure with Digic V, the still will be top quality.

2) Unlike some people have mentioned, I'm sure you have the option of shooting 2K or 4K video. You don't have to just shoot 4K. Even the current DSLRs give you and SD or HD option.

3) The reason why I like this is because it's more an all around solution. I love Full Frame video (only Canon offers this), yet with this upcoming DSLR, you can still do cool stills oriented stuff like Time Lapse photography (which you can't do with video cameras); and yes, take good photos.

4) It probably won't have the 1Dx 64 pt (is that correct?) auto focus and maybe not as high performing ISO, but will probably be a better stills performer than the upcoming 36mp Since it will have lower MP which translates to less noise. I'd be fine with a 7D style auto focus, even if it does have way less points.

That just means, less cameras to carry around. If you can deal with being limited to 12mp, I think this will be a great balance of both worlds. You'll get top performance in stills and a great video camera.

I agree 100%, that is going to be their moneymaker.  Considering the 1Dx is $6800, if you removed some of the still features and added some video features it seems like it would be easy to get it priced around $4k-$6k.

[dilbert]

For $6800/each it better be something more than an old L lens in a new housing

The value of these lenses is not just in the optics but also being able to set the distance marker for focus at, say, 20', and for the focus to be exactly that each and every time you move the focus ring to that distance.

Normal stills camera lenses (such as the 85/f.1.2) do not have properties such as this.

[CJRodgers]

I actually think the hybrid DSLR / Video will be a huge seller.

1) It will be a very good, full frame stills camera. Probably limited to 12 mp for stills, since that's about the max / ideal mp for good 4K video. For me 12k stills is perfectly fine. I'm sure with Digic V, the still will be top quality.

2) Unlike some people have mentioned, I'm sure you have the option of shooting 2K or 4K video. You don't have to just shoot 4K. Even the current DSLRs give you and SD or HD option.

3) The reason why I like this is because it's more an all around solution. I love Full Frame video (only Canon offers this), yet with this upcoming DSLR, you can still do cool stills oriented stuff like Time Lapse photography (which you can't do with video cameras); and yes, take good photos.

4) It probably won't have the 1Dx 64 pt (is that correct?) auto focus and maybe not as high performing ISO, but will probably be a better stills performer than the upcoming 36mp Since it will have lower MP which translates to less noise. I'd be fine with a 7D style auto focus, even if it does have way less points.

That just means, less cameras to carry around. If you can deal with being limited to 12mp, I think this will be a great balance of both worlds. You'll get top performance in stills and a great video camera.

I agree 100%, that is going to be their moneymaker.  Considering the 1Dx is $6800, if you removed some of the still features and added some video features it seems like it would be easy to get it priced around $4k-$6k.

+1, but ideally more like $3500 haha. Or with a good deal on a kit lens i can buy to bring down the cost.

[Axilrod]

For $6800/each it better be something more than an old L lens in a new housing

The value of these lenses is not just in the optics but also being able to set the distance marker for focus at, say, 20', and for the focus to be exactly that each and every time you move the focus ring to that distance.

Normal stills camera lenses (such as the 85/f.1.2) do not have properties such as this.

Yeah I get that, there are definitive focus marks versus just spinning to infinity, better housing, similar size so you don't have to change your rig too much when swapping lenses.  I see the advantages, but damn the Zeiss CP.2 do the same thing and they are almost half the cost.  Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon Cine Primes are BEAUTIFUL, but they seem pricey.  Then again, compared to $47k for the zooms I guess they aren't that bad a deal.